No need. all three pages have been deprecated, all relevant content has been moved to the other 40 Eri articles, at least until more canon facts are revealed justifying the new entry. This is the same case as the Earth city deletions. We have real life info but no Trek relevance. --Captainmike 18:22, 7 Jun 2004 (CEST)

You removed content from the 'star group' page as well after I last commented. I reverted that for the moment, because this circular redirect (System -> system -> star group -> System) as well as the lack of any comment about what was moved where was just confusing. I assume you copied most of that info to 40 Eridani A, but I still think that 40 Eridani system is a valid article, if only to list all 'components' of that system (B and C should not be described in the article about A, for example). If you still think that this page should be deleted, please suggest it at Memory Alpha:Votes for deletion, because I think that this needs to be discussed first. -- Cid Highwind 20:51, 7 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Is real-world info truly extraneous? Trek does have basis in our reality, and (at least some) fans surely would be interested in what Vulcan would be like. Barring 'canon' that indicates contrary, real-world information seems appropriate for stating what Trek-world would be like. ChristTrekker 19:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

While that info on the life zone is interesting, it is never stated in Star Trek, and we are not Wikipedia. We cover info from canon Star Trek. A wikipedia article is where that information belongs, IMO. --OuroborosCobratalk 20:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, what Cobra said. As I said when I reverted the edit, it doesn't belong on a Trek encyclopedia. I also tried to say "we are not Wikipedia", but that got cut off for some reason... --From Andoria with Love 10:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

And yet "When three astronomers [...] a theory Gene Roddenberry himself supported by signing their letter."—which basically says the same thing (in a less technical/complete way) as the life zone info I'd contributed, and is likewise based in the "real world"—is maintained as a part of the article. I understand what you're saying, but I think the distinction drawn in this case is a bit fuzzy. ⇔ ChristTrekker 16:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the difference is that Roddenberry was involved in that particular instance, which makes it an appropriate piece of background information for an in-universe article here. -- Renegade54 18:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it just seems silly to me. The life zone info is precisely the thing the astronomers were discussing and shared with Roddenberry. Reduced to layman's terms perhaps, but that's what it was.

Anyway, I'm done debating this. The thematic restriction has good intentions, I'm sure, but it serves to make Memory Alpha less interesting and useful to people like myself. Might I at least suggest that articles based on real-world things contain a link to their counterpart at Wikipedia as a standard practice, to aid people that would appreciate information beyond the narrow focus of this wiki? This would be beneficial and could easily be done via a template, which could categorize as well as providing a standard format. ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

We already have a standard practice of links to wikipedia using {{wikipedia}}. There is already one in this article. --OuroborosCobratalk 15:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

To expand on Cobra's comment, if you feel that there are other Wikipedia links that might prove beneficial to the reader, by all means add them to the External Links section of the article. -- Renegade54 16:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I did notice there was a link, but it's not obvious. I guess I was hoping the Wikipedia template for such would stand out a bit more than looking like just another link. Maybe not quite as much as this but something more distinctive, maybe like

Well, it would be easy enough to change all the Wikipedia links so that they stand out more, if there was a consensus to do so, simply by modifying the Wikipedia template. Since this would result in a fairly significant and widespread change on MA, I'd suggest you put your proposal to a vote. The best place for that would probably be at Template talk:Wikipedia. -- Renegade54 22:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking more along the lines of a new template that would stress the "real world" aspect. But perhaps it doesn't matter. ⇔ ChristTrekker 20:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You linked to the lemma and it's a redirect to this article - so, no, we don't have a page for that. I believe it's not necessary to create one, either, unless there's much more info about it than just "it was visible in episode X". In the past, we had a general discussion about the trinity of separate "PLANET", "PLANET (star)" and "PLANET system" articles being unecessary in most cases. -- Cid Highwind 15:30, November 12, 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the info; I was going on the basis of there being pages for both the Sol system and Sol itself. I'm of the opinion that a page about the Vulcan sun would be good. There's info about its connection to the evolution of the Vulcaninner eyelid in "Operation -- Annihilate!". There's also probably bg info we could add about the sun's behind-the-scenes connection to Epsilon Eridani, and there's definitely some bg info in The Making of the Trek Films (3rd ed., p. 67) about how it was visualized for Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. I've come across these examples of info without actively looking for them, so (as I said) there is likely to be more. I agree on not basing articles on "it was seen in X number of episodes", but in this case, there certainly seems to be more substantial info available. --Defiant 15:54, November 12, 2011 (UTC)

I've found another reference to the Vulcan sun in the script for Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, when the Priestess conducting Spock's fal-tor-pan ceremony states, "All that can be done... shall be done... Though it take full turn of the Vulcan sun..." [1] Since that line isn't in the movie, I believe it equates to more potential bg info. --Defiant 16:21, November 12, 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying that this info mustn't be put somewhere - just that it doesn't automatically have to be a separate article. For example, there's extensive information on 40 Eridani A already (and a link to that article on this one), so that wouldn't need to be put on another article. The fact that Vulcans have an inner eyelid is something that should be mentioned on a page about Vulcans - not necessarily on a separate page about a specific star, because a similar line of evolution would/could have happened with any other (similar) star as well. It's not a product of exactly that star. Similarly, information about visualization of that star could perhaps be added to the article about the Vulcan planet (if it was a planetary scene), or to this article (if it was a scene in space). We can still decide to split that information to a separate article later, if it turns out to really be more than this article can hold. -- Cid Highwind 16:52, November 12, 2011 (UTC)

(Sigh). It's becoming a typical behavior of yours to oppose suggestions I make. I'd like to see you edit some more articles, rather than just posting criticisms, or even to support some of my ideas once in a while, rather than just argumentatively dismissing them. And the memory of you jumping at the chance to remove my admin status (totally against my wishes) is still a painful one. --Defiant 17:03, November 12, 2011 (UTC)

In this case, I'd like to request admin intervention, as it's currently just one opinion against the other – whether to create an article on the Vulcan sun, or not to and instead present the info (though not all of it) on a variety of other pages. It would be helpful to determine what the majority opinion is. Having said that, MA is a consensus, not a democracy, so there should be some middle ground – a compromise we can reach. --Defiant 17:18, November 12, 2011 (UTC)

It's becoming a typical behavior of yours to cry the victim whenever you do not get your way. Life doesn't always go how you want it, people will disagree with you, apparently quite a lot on this wiki. Perhaps you should look at why, and how your long victim complex (going back years now to fights with Alan, at the least) plays into people often not wanting to help you? --OuroborosCobratalk 17:59, November 12, 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations, Defiant, for potentially derailing another previously on-topic discussion. Just for the record: You requested your admin status to be removed. Now, if you want to talk about me, my evil actions against you or what I do or don't do elsewhere on this wiki - please bring it up on my talk page. Let's keep this content discussion free of that. -- Cid Highwind 18:23, November 12, 2011 (UTC)

I agree; can we please keep this on topic (I'm sorry I strayed from it, but I'm clearly not the only one)? Like I said, it would be helpful to determine whether the majority opinion is to create an article on the Vulcan sun or to just put the info on different pages. --Defiant 19:19, November 12, 2011 (UTC)

It would obviously help "the majority" in their decision if you actually compiled the information before asking whether they agree that it is enough for a separate article. And obviously, you could do that by adding the information to another article that is a good enough fit (which would be this one). This is what I suggested before, and I'll just suggest it again. Maybe that rephrased suggestion looks less like a personal attack to you. -- Cid Highwind 19:37, November 12, 2011 (UTC)

It does, yes. Great thinking, Cid! :) I still suspect there may be an issue of relevancy, but we can come to that bridge if/when we come to it. Apologies that I took your initial proposal so personally. For the record, I actually welcome people having differing opinions and contrasting views so if, in the future, you disagree with any of my other personal opinions, feel free to voice your own opinion on it, by all means. In fact, my intention – by suggesting that a compromise could hopefully be reached – was to recognize and indeed appreciate that different opinions from my own are just as valid. I'm satisfied that such a compromise has been reached in this case, and we can hopefully reassess the situation in the future if it needs to be readdressed. --Defiant 19:51, November 12, 2011 (UTC)

Since intervention has been requested: The argument that a separate article could always be created later if there is enough info is just as relevant as saying an article on the Vulcan sun could always be merged later if there isn't enough info to support it. With that in mind, I'm for seeing what a page with this info would look like, either at Vulcan sun, a temp page, or here. The information could, and most likely should, also be added on any other pages where it is relevant. - Archduk3 22:23, November 12, 2011 (UTC)

The difference is that merging two articles creates more work and "noise" (merge suggestion, discussion, history merge, article rewrites to merge content) than splitting content from a single article would do. So, I'm sticking to my earlier suggestion to not create a (potentially unnecessary) article if it can be done another way. Please also note that, I have to repeat myself here, I don't mean to say that there mustn't ever be an article about this - just that most of the potential content that has been hinted at so far is better located elsewhere, and the rest at the moment doesn't seem to be enough. -- Cid Highwind 22:55, November 12, 2011 (UTC)

Anyways, thanks for "intervening"/giving your opinion, Archduk. On a different matter, I'd like to dispute Cid's well-written statement that "The fact that Vulcans have an inner eyelid is something that should be mentioned on a page about Vulcans - not necessarily on a separate page about a specific star, because a similar line of evolution would/could have happened with any other (similar) star as well. It's not a product of exactly that star." In "Operation -- Annihilate!", Spock specifically states that "The brightness of the Vulcan sun has caused the development of an inner eyelid." He doesn't say anything else about how the inner eyelid could have been formed by any other star; to dabble with theories of how any other star could have acted as such a catalyst seems entirely speculative, IMO. --Defiant 23:03, November 12, 2011 (UTC)

But "being bright" is not a feature unique to the Vulcan sun, either - which means that stating that an inner eyelid could only have formed on Vulcan is speculative, too, and as such should not be part of any article. What remains is just the information that Vulcan "has a bright sun" (which is as much information about that star as it is information about the system as a whole) and that "Vulcans have an inner eyelid because their star is bright" (which still is not information about the star). -- Cid Highwind 23:17, November 12, 2011 (UTC)

Is it more relevant to how the star is seen from the planet Vulcan, then (i.e. more relevant to this page)? I have to confess that I don't quite understand Vulcan's connection to the stars 40 Eridani A and Epsilon Eridani. I take it those are two distinctly different stars, right? Are they both in the same system as each other? --Defiant 23:24, November 12, 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your first question: in my opinion, yes. What matters for the Vulcan evolution is not the absolute brightness of the star, but just its relative one (its appearance from Vulcan's surface) - so it is more a value of the system as a whole.

Regarding your second question: Yes, both are different (real!) stars, several lightyears apart, which have been mentioned as being the location of Vulcan in one or another non-canon work - 40 Eridani A more often than Epsilon Eridani, though, and the latter one is by now ruled out by other factors as well. -- Cid Highwind 23:37, November 12, 2011 (UTC)

I did write about those stars on the Vulcan page, so I was aware that they're both real, but I was double-checking some stuff (thought they might have been a binary star system, since one of them's 40 Eridani A). Thanks for taking the time to answer those questions, Cid. It was interesting that you seemed to imply it's down to personal opinion on whether or not info about the Vulcan sun/inner eyelid issue is included here or on the proposed page about the star. --Defiant 23:51, November 12, 2011 (UTC)

Splits require almost as much work and noise as a merge, the only real difference being the history merger. I also didn't say we needed to make a separate page to see what this would look like, since I did suggest that a mock up could be done right here on the talk page. That said, I think a temp page would be the best solution, and as the person most likely to do the actual merge if we decided against it, I don't have a problem with doing the work. It's not like we loose anything from taking a look. - Archduk3 04:40, November 13, 2011 (UTC)

But if we decide that the inner eyelid issue is not valid in-universe information, I don't think there'll be sufficient in-universe info to justify the page creation. --Defiant 07:44, November 13, 2011 (UTC)

The inner eyelid reference is valid, it's just also valid at Star (though we currently don't discuss the effects of stars on the life on nearby planets there), Vulcan (because it's part of their physiology), Vulcan (planet) (since it's relevant to the distance Vulcan is from its sun), and here (for the same reason as the planet). Saying that "Vulcan is close to its sun" is just as valid as saying that "the sun is close to Vulcan".

That said, my reasoning for wanting to see a mock up of the purposed page was that I simply wasn't sure how much info we have on the subject in total, or the "quality" of said info. If Defiant thinks that there isn't enough info with eyelid reference removed, there probably isn't. - Archduk3 11:43, November 13, 2011 (UTC)